steveox
Well-Known Member
Yup
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
The gun owner next door
- Thread starter Cruella
- Start date
Werbung:
and all the rest of their expenses including taxes.
Before we get all high and mighty about typos -- let us note you have a few of your own in this very post.
The market determines what a CEO will make, not the government.
Why is income inequality not sustainable? And what are the driving factors behind it in your opinion?
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Talk about trolling!
Won't work, dear!
Your baiting is so common that it is like music (although very dissonant cacophony, I must admit) to my ears!
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Before we get all high and mighty about typos -- let us note you have a few of your own in this very post.
The market determines what a CEO will make, not the government.
Why is income inequality not sustainable? And what are the driving factors behind it in your opinion?
Yes, I make mistakes when typing. . .especially if I type on my IPad! And I certainly never said otherwise!
But. . .when one talks about an economic theory who bears the name of an individual. . .it is a slightly different story! It just makes one look kind of . . .just repeating what one HEARD on TV, rather than UNDERSTOOD From studying that theory!
And, we already discussed "manipulated market," didn't we (or was it with PLC?)
Anyway. . .this may be EXACTLY What the problem is with this country! That blind faith in a "market" that hasn't been "free" for decades, and that is robbing the workers from the rightful fruit of their labor to pile it on the top 0.10 of 1 % "elite!"
Okay, as I asked before (and didn't get an answer to). . .what would you say is the "optimal" gap between what the average worker makes and the earnings of his CEO? AS I said before, 40 years ago the "gap" was 1: 40. Today it is 1:383 (some as high as 1:400).
Where do we stop that? Is it when the gap reaches 1: 1000? 1: 3000?
When does that gap reach the point when it is more advantageous for the average worker to be on welfare than to work?
Let me ask you. . .what do you think about Walmart?
Walmart pays his average employee about $8.75 an hour. A salary that doesn't allow even a full time worker to earn enough to raise a family without the assistance of the government (food stamps, medicaid for his kids, school lunches, maybe even subsidized housing). In the mean time, the owners of Walmart are billionaires, and the CEO makes MORE in ONE HOUR OF WORK (which might be playing golf with other CEOS) than an average walmart employee makes in a WHOLE YEAR of full time work. . . .and, every time Wallmart wants to open a store in a new town, they insist in getting more "corporate welfare" in terms of tax breaks, free or below cost land, free infrastructure, etc. . .paid by local government AND Federal tax breaks.
So. . .What is wrong about Walmart's CEO and the owners making that much money? Well, the REASON they make that much money is because their workers are grossly underpaid and they are SUBSIDIZED by the government (federal and local) at BOTH END . . . through social welfare to allow the Walmart employees to survive, and through corporate welfare.
Now, look at the Costco CEO, who is paid $550,000 a year, and pays his average employee $17.00 an hour. It is still about 1:300. . .but it is significantly lower than Wallmart's obscene stealing from his employees and from the government, because the Costco employee doesn't need to use food stamps and is not on Medicaid if he/she works full time! This is much closer to a "socially responsible corporation."
By the way, Costco also provides health care to most of their employees. . .Wallmart only provides it to the top bracket employees, and they are still trying to shrink that!
I also believe that, months ago, I provided a link (a lecture video) that clearly explained the SOCIAL IMPACTS of increased wealth gap. . . .but obviously, it wasn't interesting to anyone here, because it didn't fit within the "mentality" of the "run away capitalism" so dear to conservatives!
We ALL know that poverty creates a lack of hope, thwarts the dreams of people, especially people who still try to work the best they can to reach that "American dream." And we all recognize that poverty acts on our society through increase in crime, increase in suicide, increase in child abuse, increase in single parent families, increase in poor health.
And you are still asking what the problem is with a huge (and still increasing) wealth gap?
I know you're smarter than that!
I believe it was with PLC.
I don't care what the gap is. People are free to run their own companies however they want.
CEO's are free to run their own companies however they see fit. Now, I am all for eliminating corporate welfare like you describe, but I think that such issues speak to a larger issue of the dire need for tax reform, rather than true corporate welfare.
It seems most of this goes back to a lack of education...if someone drops out of high school or for whatever reason makes poor choices along the way, that is their choice...
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You really show that you do not understand the problem.
So. . .when do you think that CEO taking for ever greater % of the profit will begin to screw up society and . . .actually create a social class of "working slave?
If a company's profit is (let's say) $100 millions and it needs 10,001 employees to run. If the CEO (and the board, of course) decides that he wants to make $60 millions per year and that leaves $40 millions to pay the other 10,000 employees (that would be an average per employee of $4,000 per year This would be a 1: 1,500 (1 average per employee, and 1,500 X more for the CEO). . .can you not see that it is NOT sustainable?
Cruella
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 4,311
Having concerned parents that are being good role models and teaching them self discipline would help too....but if they "choose" to drop out of school and not beome a responsible adult, then we shouldn't have to pay for their
You won't attract any talent at $4,000 a year -- such a scenario simply won't happen.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Okay. . .so you are starting to see that this scenario is not sustainable. . .good boy!
Now. . .it probably seem that going from 1:400 to 1:800 is such a far fetch scenario that it is unrealistic, right?
Well. . .let's see how long it took us in this country to go from 1:40 1: 400 (or, as in this link, 1:42 to 1: 380). . .it took exactly 31 years! So. . .let's see, going from 1:42 to 1:380 took 31 years (for a multiplicateur of NINE). If we keep that trend, how long will it take to reach that multiplicateur of TWO. . .would you say. . .less than 10 years? and to double it again. . .another 10 years?
You still think the income gap is a non-issue?
[QUOTE
CEO-to-Worker Pay Gap
The CEO of an S&P 500 Index company made, on average, 380 times the average wages of U.S. workers in 2011. Although these overall averages can be calculated based on public information, investors cannot compare the level of their individual company's CEO pay to that of other company employees.
This secrecy will soon come to an end, thanks to Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that requires companies to disclose CEO-to-worker pay ratios. Congress recognized that this information will help investors better understand CEO pay trends relative to other company employees.
High CEO-to-worker pay ratios can reduce the performance of companies. Academic research has found that steep pay disparities hurt employee morale and productivity.[1] Extreme disparities between CEO and employee pay also have been shown to result in a significant deterioration in the quality of products produced.[2]
In companies where CEO compensation is disproportionately high compared with that of other employees, CEO-to-worker pay disparities can cause high employee turnover and lower job satisfaction.[3] Another study found that firms with high levels of CEO pay relative to other top executives also reduce performance.[4]
Disclosing CEO-to-worker pay ratios will encourage companies to consider CEO pay in the context of their entire workforce. According to one study, a high-paid celebrity CEO turns a company into "one genius with 1,000 helpers," taking focus away from the motivation and creativity needed from all of the company's employees.[5]
Most important, disclosing the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay ratio will encourage companies to restrain their overall level of CEO pay. At most companies, CEOs are paid by comparing their compensation to that of other company CEOs. Little consideration is given to how CEO pay relates to other company employees.
Pay ratio disclosure will give investors more information to assess whether compensation is being awarded broadly across the entire company or concentrated at the top. Given that overall CEO-to-worker pay ratios are continuing to rise, this company-specific information is needed now more than ever.[/QUOTE]
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99/CEO-to-Worker-Pay-Gap
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
The Free Market finds balance in all things.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Correct. EXCEPT THAT THE FREE MARKET NO LONGER EXIST.
What we have now is a MANIPULATED MARKET. . .and I give you two guesses of whom is doing the Manipulating. . . and it is NOT the workers!
the government obviously
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
You recognize that I'm correct in stating the Free Market would find a balance yet argue against the Free Market as a solution. That leaves only the "manipulated" market...
So letting the "workers" manipulate the market would be more desirable, is that what you're trying to argue? I know you're not arguing that nobody should "manipulate" the markets, that's my Free Market position, so clearly you must think one - or more - of the special interest groups you side with should be in charge of any and/or all manipulations.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Openmind
Well-Known Member
No. I believe that since the market has been so severely manipulated by giant corporations at the disadvantage of the workers and middle class, we need the government intervention to bring the balance back through labor laws and regulations to protect the workers from the over reach of the big corps. Once the balance swing back to the center, we can, with caution let the newly freed market act. . . Under observation so that excess do not trigger q new kidnapping of the free market by those who have the money to create chaos
Werbung:
Similar threads
